Drunken Sailors Distance Themselves From Bush Administration

1:08 am EST August 11th, 2005 | Uncategorized | 10 Comments

(8.11.05) — In a tersely worded statement the Local 104 Drunken Sailors Union of America distanced itself from the Bush administration. “Enough is enough — we refuse to have the good name of drunken sailors affiliated with President Bush. We like to drink, we like to imbibe, we like to have a good time when we’re on shore-leave, but none of us have ever spent $286 Billion,” said the release.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

10 Responses to “Drunken Sailors Distance Themselves From Bush Administration”

  1. SaveFarris says:
    August 11, 2005 at 8:08 am

    Say, how’s that deficit? Still $500 million?

    Could you tell us more stories about the “jobless recovery” too? Those were classic!

  2. Oliver says:
    August 11, 2005 at 8:08 am

    Yes, it’s taken 4 years to get close to 0 jobs created. Slap yourselves on the back for the brilliance.

  3. Marty says:
    August 11, 2005 at 10:08 am

    You really don’t pay attention, do you. Since January 2001 to today there is a net 4.3 million more people employed. Even with the estimated 2.7 million people new to the workforce that’s 1.6 million jobs gained above and beyond. (The Bureau of Labor statistics is a great site.) I would just call that “recovery” (and all without a dot.com boom.)

    5% unemployment, 30 straight month of economic growth at 3% or better, unemployment trending down… Hmmm. Sounds like 1997.

    And that deficit, Farris- perhaps you haven’t heard- 28% reduction due to increased revenues. But, you know. Tax cuts don’t work.

  4. Oliver says:
    August 11, 2005 at 11:08 am

    The deficit number would be sort of impressive if he hadn’t come into office with a… surplus.

  5. johnnyprogressive says:
    August 11, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    Gee why is everyone forgetting the little stat of real wages dropping? Is that because all those new jobs are underemployed people who are desperate for work? And 4.3 million net jobs since 2001 is an average of a little less than a million jobs a year. Compared to the 3 million a year under Clinton. And he did that by… wait for it… RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH!

    So let’s review- tax cuts equals tepid job growth (it keeps pace with population growth in a good month). Tax hikes on rich equal tremendous growth. (and Ive mentioned here many times before, the argument that the Clinton economy was based around the dotcom boom doesnt hold any water, considering it didnt start a good 4-5 years into his presidency).

  6. Marty says:
    August 11, 2005 at 9:08 pm

    You might want to check that “real wages” claim against the data. You will certainly be disappointed. (That you are wrong.)

    And how many of those dot.com jobs are still here? 1/3? 1/4? And how many of those jobs were created in 1997 or earlier? (You see- the economy didn’t take off in the beginning of the Clinton Presidency, but there was steady economic growth (sound familiar?). But it really took off- you guessed it- 4 years into his presidency. Now what was it that happened about two years in…..? Newton somebody… government shutdown…impasse… Oh yeah- Agenda adjustment.

    Like I said- the current economy is quite similar to 1997 (“best economy ever”) before it took off into the stratosphere. Oh- Except one thing. We are already at 5% unemployment. (It was a little higher back then.)

    But I do have to agree with Oliver on this bigger point. Pork is definitely out of control. Those drunken sailors are on the right track. I’m almost embarrassed that Congressional R’s and D’s love their pet projects SOOOOO much. Seems like a good time to enact the power of the line item veto!

  7. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 11, 2005 at 10:08 pm

    Seems like a good time to enact the power of the line item veto!

    Why? GWB has yet to use the veto power he already has.

  8. buma says:
    August 11, 2005 at 11:08 pm

    SaveFarris–
    Did you mean to say $500 BILLION? You were only off by a multiplier of 1000. I know you’ll probably just thank me for ‘making the pie higher.’

  9. johnnyprogressive says:
    August 12, 2005 at 5:08 am

    The reason unemployment was higher back then was because it started at astronomical levels when Clinton took office after Bush I. Like around 8%. When Bush took office, unemployment was a bit lower than it is now. So yes, if you actually put those unemployment rates in their proper context, your comparison of the two economies falls on its face. And the “steady economic growth” you speak of in the early to mid nineties was much more substantial than you give it credit for. Yes there was certainly an uptick when the dotcom boom started, but growth would have been excellent regardless. Those jobs only account for about 2 million of the 20+ million during his presidency. So if there’s any other excuses you want to give for the prosperity for the nineties, now is a good time to throw them out there.

    Oh and lets not all forget congressional Republicans predicting a new Depression in the face of Clinton’s economic decisions. That turned out to be pretty accurate, eh?

  10. neoconsrloopy says:
    August 12, 2005 at 8:08 am

    And don’t forget that the S&P 500 is STILL about 15% less than it was when the Big Dog left office.

    As I remember it, in 97 I paid 80c for a gallon of gas. Yesterday, I paid $2.36. Good we selected an oil president, huh?